Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[Reynard]

1e:
Dm: "where are you searching?"
players: "we take a look around the room."
dm: "where?"
players: "the room."
dm: "where?"
players: "the roooom!"
dm: grrmbl
players: "sheesh."
dm: "you see a dead body, a blood pool, and the back door is open."
players: "we search the back yard."
dm: "on your way through the door a giant scythe swings through and cuts everyone in half except the halfling."
halfling's player: "whew!"
dm: "who gets beheaded instead. And, oh...you find a knife covered in blood."

ftfy

 

[Thasmodious]

...look, obviously you're a fan. If you're unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ and that people who hold other opinions can actually be valid in holding those opinions, and if you can't somehow engage in a conversation instead of spouting subjectivities that are clearly in dispute, I think we're pretty much done with whatever constructive results could have come from this conversation. You're intractable, and spouting about how ignorant and wrong I am certainly isn't going to convince me that you have anything worth contributing to my perspective.

Saying "You're wrong, I'm right, you're ignorant, I'm well-learned," isn't a counterpoint, it's just contradiction. I feel like I've stepped into a Monty Python sketch. Go enjoy your game, no one is stopping you.

What is humorous is that this is how you presented your initial position in this thread. I tried arguing the points rationally with you, but you are unwilling to move past your circular position of:

4e sucks at noncombat
But what about all the noncombat things?
Clearly they suck, didn't I already say that 4e sucks at these things?

Anytime someone responded asking for either clarification of how previous editions were superior or how the current edition's tools "suck", you said you weren't arguing specifics, then continued your unsupported position as if everyone was in agreement with you.

It's funny that when I responded in kind with "nu-uh 4e is better!" that you responded as if you now find that being "unable or unwilling to accept that experiences differ" is a bad way to be.

Many players of 4e simply disagree with you that the options presented in 4e are inadequate, not thought out well, and don't handle noncombat situations well. They do in our games. In my games, skill challenges work great. They have depth and drama and are far, far superior to single skill checks. The spotlight shining solely on skill monkeys outside of combat is over, and my players enjoy that they are equally engaged and valuable in or out of combat. For those reasons and others I find 4e handles noncombat situations far better than previous editions. It combines the freedom of roleplay and DM design of the early editions with mechanical support (imo, correctly) so it is about the character's and not the player's skill.

I've already made that argument throughout here, but you chose instead to ignore that, "not argue specifics", and continue to rant on about how it sucks "just cause" without offering any reasoned debate or detail.

 

[ProfessorPain]

The problem is that having the choice to do something insanely sub-optimal (which not maxing out skills is, for the most part) is a bad thing. If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.

But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense. Especially if the party m

 

[ProfessorPain]

The problem is that having the choice to do something insanely sub-optimal (which not maxing out skills is, for the most part) is a bad thing. If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.

But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense. Especially if the party member splits and investigates things on his own-- which tends to happen in mysteries;

 

[Dausuul]

If some PCs keep skills maxed out because it makes no mechanical sense not to, and other PCs dabble in lots of skills because it seems like fun, and then you need the skills that one of the dabbler PCs should be good at, then you're in trouble.

More to the point, the dabbler is likely to find that his/her skills do not work the way s/he wanted them to. Skill dabbling in 3.X is like the Toughness feat, or the monk class - a trap awaiting the mechanically unsavvy player. It lures you in with promises and then fails to deliver.

People have an instinctive sense that one ought to diversify and not over-focus, and they like the idea of being good at a lot of things. So they spread their skill points around, but once they get into the actual game, they discover that instead of being diverse and good at a lot of things, they are in fact dilettantes who suck at a lot of things.

 

[ProfessorPain]

People have an instinctive sense that one ought to diversify and not over-focus, and they like the idea of being good at a lot of things. So they spread their skill points around, but once they get into the actual game, they discover that instead of being diverse and good at a lot of things, they are in fact dilettantes who suck at a lot of things.

This just doesn't match the reality. I have played tons of characters in 3E with skills spread out and it works just fine. Lets say you 40 ranks to spread and can max at 5. You could take 5 in eight skills. That works, and it is nice to have eight fully maxed skills. Or you could, if you want a well rounded character, you could take 5 in two skills that are important to you and then take 3 ranks in 10 other skills. You could even play with the numbers more to get greater variety. There isn't anything mechanically unsound about this approach. A +3 isn't that bad compared to a +5. Its not as good, but it certaily isn't useless.

 

[Thasmodious]

And combat could be handled with a skill challenge, too. The thing here is that skill challenges aren't good to use for an entire session the lion's share of a campaign. For something I want the game to focus on, I want more detail and strategy.

My problem is you keep saying things like that. You want 4e to do more and you argue it does less. You wants noncombat things more focused on. But where was the focus on noncombat skill use in 3e? 4e has a system for handling noncombat scenes ranging from a few seconds to months of game time in skill challenges. This system is used to play out social scenes and exploration scenes, among others.

What was 3es complex, detailed, and focused social encounter system? It was a make a diplomacy/bluff check.

What was 3e's complex detailed system for dealing with exploration? A survival check and a couple paragraphs on getting lost.

Where was 1e's complex, detailed system for doing anything noncombat?

They weren't there. 4e has a more complex, detailed, and cohesive system for noncombat encounters than any previous edition has. An adaptable system that gives you plenty of freedom combined with the weight of character based mechanical support. The DM has to learn one system to cover practically any noncombat situation and its easy to apply on the fly.

Your positions and expectations are out of whack. You say 4e is worse than previous editions because it doesn't focus on these things. But neither did the other editions. Only in comparison to game system actually built to focus on these things to the exclusion of others do your vague criticisms hold water. But we aren't talking about other systems, we are talking previous editions of D&D. It's like you have a hazy memory of prior systems and imagine that the things we did in those games were supported by awesome rules that you can't seem to recall that have somehow just slipped away and covered their tracks like an old school druid.

 

[drothgery]

But it isn't sub optimal. It works very well to spread skills out. You don't have to take a 2 in everthing if that is too low for you. You can take some 5s, some 4s, some 6s and some 7s. This isn't sub optimal. It makes perfect mechanical sense.

No it doesn't (at least, beyond 5th level or so, when 5-7 ranks is nearly maxed out). At 10th level, when maxed out is 13 ranks, then 7 ranks sucks. At 15th level, when maxed out is 18 ranks (and there's probably 3 or 4 points difference in ability modifiers), then 7 ranks is useless.

Also, this is why cross-class skills are useless, and you should never put points in them except to qualify for PrCs or to get one rank and be trained.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Opportunity cost - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a economic term that references the cost of choosing one option against all possible options. For example, if your rich uncle leaves you $40,000 on your 18th birthday, you could spend that money on fast cars & loose women, or you could spend it on college. The opportunity cost the the intangible "cost" of choosing one of these options; college is hard work but it means more money in the future (by path of a good career) while fast cars and partying creates enjoyment now at the cost of long term gain.

Any choice carries an opportunity cost; the cost is what is "lost" by choosing X over Y.

Now, back to D&D. The opportunity cost of devoting two ranks to a skill you will otherwise not use (such as diplomacy) vs. spending those ranks on a skill you use all the time (say, spellcraft) is the frequency of use vs. surprise bonus.

If I make spellcraft checks regularly (to identify spells, to identify potions, etc) than that +2 (10% boost) is regularly used. Your much more likely to roll that skill and thus have that +2 come into play than a skill you do not use regularly or only use in "forced" situations (such as your "The King dislikes the bard and asks the cleric what he thinks").

Sure, that +2 is nice when it comes in handy, but you'll get more miles out of putting those 2 skill points into your spellcraft which you roll multiple times per game session.

Of course, D&D puts a bit of a crimp in that by making certain skills have earlier caps than others. Skills that face a static DC (such as climb, balance or tumble) often have "cut off" points where further ranks is wasted (such as no need to raise tumble over a net +24 bonus, synergy and ability mod included). Those "wasted" ranks often show up in vanity skills or to shore up other skill point oddities (multi-classing, int boosts).

I don't take skills I don't plan on using. If I make a character with loads of skills, it is becuase he is going to be using them. If you only plan on using spell craft, then it makes sense to maximize. But if you plan on doing lots of different things with your character, a diverse range of skills is important. If all you are doing is dungeon crawls, I can see your point. But I find in city adventures, my characters are constantly moving around on their own, talking to people, finding info, researching, sneaking around, etc. It almost always helps me in these situations to have more skills to fall back on.

 

[drothgery]

This just doesn't match the reality. I have played tons of characters in 3E with skills spread out and it works just fine. Lets say you 40 ranks to spread and can max at 5. You could take 5 in eight skills. That works, and it is nice to have eight fully maxed skills. Or you could, if you want a well rounded character, you could take 5 in two skills that are important to you and then take 3 ranks in 10 other skills. You could even play with the numbers more to get greater variety. There isn't anything mechanically unsound about this approach. A +3 isn't that bad compared to a +5. Its not as good, but it certaily isn't useless.

Err... have you played these characters in games with other characters who just maxed out as many skills as they could? Or with DMs who were using stock adventures? You cannot challenge characters who are maxing out their skills and make a dabbler useful. And stock adventurers have to assume PCs max out their skills, because it's the rational thing to do.